An irony hides in the context of the NASA Artemis II launch on April 2. The U.S. has both openly and in internal reports cast the Artemis programme to return American astronauts to the moon as part of a race against China. But as China in Space editor Jack Congram has pointed out, China does not believe it is racing the U.S. to the moon.

Also read: NASA Artemis II launch highlights

Instead, it has developed its programme to send Chinese astronauts (taikonauts) to the moon as part of a national programme, with ties to local industries and developmental goals. The Chinese Government is thus committed to funding the programme and providing political support for it, allowing it to advance at a steady pace — one that has evidently unnerved the U.S.

Under pressure, NASA, in its public messaging at least, has responded by describing its priorities and urgency in terms of being in a race with the China National Space Administration (CNSA), with the U.S. state providing vacillating support for those priorities: swinging one way because of the costs, then the other because ‘beating’ China offers the prospect of projecting American supremacy in at least one high-technology domain, after having that undermined in semiconductor and clean energy.

Editorial | On the Artemis II launch

The irony? As Mr. Congram put it, the liberal democracy “sees the moon as a proving ground in a geopolitical contest”, with commercial connotations tacked on, while the party state “views it as an extension of long-term science-driven development”. Perhaps this is not an irony at all given the success of China’s state-directed techno-nationalist development in the last half century, or perhaps CNSA’s apparent indifference to NASA’s efforts is rooted in secure knowledge that it is, in fact, ahead. Either way, China is giving the U.S. more than a run for its money.

Chinese pressure

And if the Chinese pressure is taken away, the U.S. may lose the sole reason it is in such a rush to return American astronauts to the moon. Politicians, policymakers, and pundits have mentioned research and exploration, but they don’t seem to be driving forces. In fact, as astrophysicist Erika Nesvold has observed, neither the U.S. government nor NASA has formally articulated what is so objectionable about allowing Chinese astronauts on the moon first (a stand reminiscent of U.S. President Donald Trump’s speech on the same day, April 2, about why he went to war against Iran.)

This extended preamble may be necessary to understand the NASA Artemis programme because, in general, the sights and sounds of any sufficiently ‘large’ space mission can spark enough awe and wonder to blow away sceptical thoughts. The spectacle alone can seem sufficient reason to do it.

When the 98-m-tall Space Launch System (SLS) rocket lifted off with the Orion capsule and its crew of four astronauts early on April 2, there were cheers on the ground and around the world. These machines were products of a sophisticated engineering effort. The rocket’s core stage was powered by four RS-25 engines and two five-part boosters that together exerted more liftoff thrust than the workhorse of the Apollo missions.

This configuration was required to support the Orion crew capsule, which has been integrated with the European Service Module to provide propulsion and life-support systems. Orion is a little larger than a Maruti Suzuki Swift, weighs 11 tonnes (26 tonnes including the service module), can sustain a crew of four for 21 days, includes an advanced launch abort system for crew safety, and uses modern avionics and touchscreen interfaces instead of the largely analogue controls of earlier spacecraft. The capsule’s 5-metre-wide heat shield is also the largest of its kind.

There is in all of us a tendency to equate one country’s achievement in spaceflight as being indicative of what humans as a species are capable of. Space is hard and the astronauts who ‘survive’ it are (technically) proof that we can all survive it. But as much as this tendency is justified and lends itself to gratifying romanticisms, it bears remembering that at least for now the Artemis programme is a flawed representative of the human aspirations for space.

An irony hides in the context of the NASA Artemis II launch on April 2. The U.S. has both openly and in internal reports cast the Artemis programme to return American astronauts to the moon as part of a race against China. But as China in Space editor Jack Congram has pointed out, China does not believe it is racing the U.S. to the moon.

Also read: NASA Artemis II launch highlights

Instead, it has developed its programme to send Chinese astronauts (taikonauts) to the moon as part of a national programme, with ties to local industries and developmental goals. The Chinese Government is thus committed to funding the programme and providing political support for it, allowing it to advance at a steady pace — one that has evidently unnerved the U.S.

Under pressure, NASA, in its public messaging at least, has responded by describing its priorities and urgency in terms of being in a race with the China National Space Administration (CNSA), with the U.S. state providing vacillating support for those priorities: swinging one way because of the costs, then the other because ‘beating’ China offers the prospect of projecting American supremacy in at least one high-technology domain, after having that undermined in semiconductor and clean energy.

Editorial | On the Artemis II launch

The irony? As Mr. Congram put it, the liberal democracy “sees the moon as a proving ground in a geopolitical contest”, with commercial connotations tacked on, while the party state “views it as an extension of long-term science-driven development”. Perhaps this is not an irony at all given the success of China’s state-directed techno-nationalist development in the last half century, or perhaps CNSA’s apparent indifference to NASA’s efforts is rooted in secure knowledge that it is, in fact, ahead. Either way, China is giving the U.S. more than a run for its money.

Chinese pressure

And if the Chinese pressure is taken away, the U.S. may lose the sole reason it is in such a rush to return American astronauts to the moon. Politicians, policymakers, and pundits have mentioned research and exploration, but they don’t seem to be driving forces. In fact, as astrophysicist Erika Nesvold has observed, neither the U.S. government nor NASA has formally articulated what is so objectionable about allowing Chinese astronauts on the moon first (a stand reminiscent of U.S. President Donald Trump’s speech on the same day, April 2, about why he went to war against Iran.)

This extended preamble may be necessary to understand the NASA Artemis programme because, in general, the sights and sounds of any sufficiently ‘large’ space mission can spark enough awe and wonder to blow away sceptical thoughts. The spectacle alone can seem sufficient reason to do it.

When the 98-m-tall Space Launch System (SLS) rocket lifted off with the Orion capsule and its crew of four astronauts early on April 2, there were cheers on the ground and around the world. These machines were products of a sophisticated engineering effort. The rocket’s core stage was powered by four RS-25 engines and two five-part boosters that together exerted more liftoff thrust than the workhorse of the Apollo missions.

This configuration was required to support the Orion crew capsule, which has been integrated with the European Service Module to provide propulsion and life-support systems. Orion is a little larger than a Maruti Suzuki Swift, weighs 11 tonnes (26 tonnes including the service module), can sustain a crew of four for 21 days, includes an advanced launch abort system for crew safety, and uses modern avionics and touchscreen interfaces instead of the largely analogue controls of earlier spacecraft. The capsule’s 5-metre-wide heat shield is also the largest of its kind.

There is in all of us a tendency to equate one country’s achievement in spaceflight as being indicative of what humans as a species are capable of. Space is hard and the astronauts who ‘survive’ it are (technically) proof that we can all survive it. But as much as this tendency is justified and lends itself to gratifying romanticisms, it bears remembering that at least for now the Artemis programme is a flawed representative of the human aspirations for space.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) added a new mission to its Artemis moon programme involving a ​spacecraft docking test in Earth’s orbit before landing its first ‌astronauts on the moon in over half a century, ​overhauling the flagship U.S. moon effort amid ⁠competitive pressure from China.

The new Artemis mission, planned for 2027, is one of many moon programme changes the U.S. space ‌agency announced on Friday (February 27, 2026) as China inches closer to its own 2030 crewed moon landing ‌goal, and U.S. safety experts warn more testing is ‌needed ⁠before NASA makes its crewed attempt to land ⁠on the moon, now planned as Artemis IV in 2028.

NASA also cancelled an effort to upgrade its Space Launch System rocket to ​instead focus on increasing ‌that rocket’s production and flight rate, which has been slow relative to newer rockets. The move impacts Boeing’s roughly $2 billion contract to build a more powerful SLS ‌upper stage, current plans for which have been ​cancelled.

Elon Musk’s SpaceX and Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin are each developing an astronaut lunar lander ⁠for the programme, duelling to be the first to achieve the moon landing for NASA. Boeing and Northrop Grumman ‌build SLS, which carries the Lockheed Martin-built Orion astronaut capsule that will taxi the astronauts to one of the lunar landers in space before landing on the moon.

The new mission allows more practice for NASA before its more ambitious step of landing on the moon, ‌which had long been planned for Artemis III. The agency launched ​an uncrewed test of SLS and Orion in 2022 and is targeting an April launch of Artemis ⁠II, taking four astronauts around the moon and back.

The ⁠updated Artemis III mission will involve Orion, with astronauts aboard, demonstrating its ability to dock ‌with one or both of the lunar landers in low-Earth orbit. The process is a crucial juncture in ​the agency’s path to the moon.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) added a new mission to its Artemis moon programme involving a ​spacecraft docking test in Earth’s orbit before landing its first ‌astronauts on the moon in over half a century, ​overhauling the flagship U.S. moon effort amid ⁠competitive pressure from China.

The new Artemis mission, planned for 2027, is one of many moon programme changes the U.S. space ‌agency announced on Friday (February 27, 2026) as China inches closer to its own 2030 crewed moon landing ‌goal, and U.S. safety experts warn more testing is ‌needed ⁠before NASA makes its crewed attempt to land ⁠on the moon, now planned as Artemis IV in 2028.

NASA also cancelled an effort to upgrade its Space Launch System rocket to ​instead focus on increasing ‌that rocket’s production and flight rate, which has been slow relative to newer rockets. The move impacts Boeing’s roughly $2 billion contract to build a more powerful SLS ‌upper stage, current plans for which have been ​cancelled.

Elon Musk’s SpaceX and Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin are each developing an astronaut lunar lander ⁠for the programme, duelling to be the first to achieve the moon landing for NASA. Boeing and Northrop Grumman ‌build SLS, which carries the Lockheed Martin-built Orion astronaut capsule that will taxi the astronauts to one of the lunar landers in space before landing on the moon.

The new mission allows more practice for NASA before its more ambitious step of landing on the moon, ‌which had long been planned for Artemis III. The agency launched ​an uncrewed test of SLS and Orion in 2022 and is targeting an April launch of Artemis ⁠II, taking four astronauts around the moon and back.

The ⁠updated Artemis III mission will involve Orion, with astronauts aboard, demonstrating its ability to dock ‌with one or both of the lunar landers in low-Earth orbit. The process is a crucial juncture in ​the agency’s path to the moon.